|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Owner | 2874 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2004 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2024 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Adeybull"
- Then, it would seem, the RFL suddenly, and at the 11th hour, came up with a claim of its own as a creditor. Again, one assumes this was in the form of a formal "proof of debt". Again, something that was not recorded in the books and records of the company and, cursiously, something that the RFL seemingly did not lodge with the administrator at the earliest possibel opportunity. FA considers the nature and timing of this claim "odd", and would very much like to know where it came from. And so would I.
'"
If the nature of the RFL's claim is as I understand it to be then you would not expect to see it within the company accounts. From the company's point of view it would be classed as Contingent Liability and therefore not included within the accounts, except perhaps as a note to the accounts.
I suspect that there has been a game of "tit for tat" here. The RFL's claim was against OK and his personal guarantee to repay all SL monies in the event of another insolvency event. I suspect that OK has tried to include this guarantee within his creditor claim and so the RFL have contra'd it as the ultimate creditor of that amount, e.g. it may be due to OK in the first instance but is ultimately due to the RFL via a signed legal agreement, a kind of first charge if you will.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14145 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Highlander"So that is what I would like to know more about. Because the trade creditors were stuffed by that RFL process.'"
Of course, if we engage in more flights of fancy (another subject Bulls supporters are no strangers to, given the regular flights of fancy we have to endure from those who do not wish us well...) then we could improve on that, could we not? In one particular flight of fancy, for example, a plan to see the creditors paid, with a [iquid pro quo[/i of no points deduction or special measures, might or might not have been stymied by the actions of the likes of, e.g. Carter and the Wakefield Supporters Trust? Albeit in response to certain very unwise statements by a certain then-chairman previously alluded to, which may or may not have put the RFL in a position where they were unable to follow through on the plans hitherto?
As I said, just one total flight of fancy, albeit one that might occur to a creditor who could have been paid, and could now not be paid as a result? But maybe one to bear in mind, in the face of any vitriol that may or may not eminate from some of those who have demonstrated by their actions they do not wish us well?
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 3534 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2012 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2020 | Feb 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Remember the RFL told the Bulls to go into admin and there will be no points deduction or ludicrous Sky money penalty
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14145 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Derwent"If the nature of the RFL's claim is as I understand it to be then you would not expect to see it within the company accounts. From the company's point of view it would be classed as Contingent Liability and therefore not included within the accounts, except perhaps as a note to the accounts.
I suspect that there has been a game of "tit for tat" here. The RFL's claim was against OK and his personal guarantee to repay all SL monies in the event of another insolvency event. I suspect that OK has tried to include this guarantee within his creditor claim and so the RFL have contra'd it as the ultimate creditor of that amount, e.g. it may be due to OK in the first instance but is ultimately due to the RFL via a signed legal agreement, a kind of first charge if you will.'"
Would not be in the least bit surprised.
Although if the RFL HAD secured a PG from OK, that should not be anything to do with the company at all? Unless the deal between the RFL and OKB for the central funding included a clause allowing the RFL to seek to recover some or all central funding in the event of insolvency? In which case, it would indeed be a sort of contingent liability, a bit like the BBH contingent liability to repay the council the Odsal settlement, pro rata, should the club stop playing its home games at Odsal.
And, maybe, the RFL did not bother to lodge a formal claim initially because of the "yeah, whatever" explanation FA rightly gave earlier regarding further claims when there is no prospect of dividend?
And they lodged a claim only when OK lodged HIS claim, which (uncontested and if admitted) would have given him majority voting rights at a creditors' meeting?
IF we knew that such a clause WAS in place regarding the RFL and the central funding (another one of these agreements not in the public domain?) then that would certainly explain the RFL's action?
Like so many aspects of this disaster, so much of the damage is being done due to speculation - wild or otherwise because key facts necessary to form a reasoned judgment are not in the public domain. And may never become so.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Owner | 2874 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2004 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2024 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Adeybull"Would not be in the least bit surprised.
Although if the RFL HAD secured a PG from OK, that should not be anything to do with the company at all? Unless the deal between the RFL and OKB for the central funding included a clause allowing the RFL to seek to recover some or all central funding in the event of insolvency? In which case, it would indeed be a sort of contingent liability, a bit like the BBH contingent liability to repay the council the Odsal settlement, pro rata, should the club stop playing its home games at Odsal.
And, maybe, the RFL did not bother to lodge a formal claim initially because of the "yeah, whatever" explanation FA rightly gave earlier regarding further claims when there is no prospect of dividend?
And they lodged a claim only when OK lodged HIS claim, which (uncontested and if admitted) would have given him majority voting rights at a creditors' meeting?
IF we knew that such a clause WAS in place regarding the RFL and the central funding (another one of these agreements not in the public domain?) then that would certainly explain the RFL's action?
Like so many aspects of this disaster, so much of the damage is being done due to speculation - wild or otherwise because key facts necessary to form a reasoned judgment are not in the public domain. And may never become so.'"
Well we do know that there was a signed agreement between OK and the RFL that all SL monies would be required to be repaid if there was another insolvency event because that has been reported publicly in the press, and is also stated in the administrator's background to insolvency report.
What we don't know is the precise nature of that agreement, which is what is causing the confusion. For instance, it may have been the case that the agreement was that the company was responsible for the repayment but it would default to OK being personally liable should the company have insufficient funds to meet the liability. In which case, the RFL would be perfectly entitled to lodge a creditor claim initially against the company for the amount in question. The administrator would then formally declare that the company could not meet said liability and so the RFL would then have proper recourse to pursue OK for the money.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 322 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2014 | 11 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2014 | Sep 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"I have several times summrised what happened at that meeting and stated that OK produced his proof to the administrator. I am not sure which bit you are having trouble with.
So why mention it again? Everybody who is interested has read all about these facts
Indeed it was not, any more than it is a loan to any other club. But who on earth argued it was a loan? Another of your straw men.
And yet claimed and got admitted as a £1m creditor. And thus voted to that amount. Odd, wouldn't you say?
"Recorded"? Why on earth would it need to be "recorded"? How would it be recorded? For what purpose? A creditors' meeting is attended by - and only by - CREDITORS. There's a clue in the phrase "creditors meeting". Your curious theory is just weird.
Again, nuts. How can there be any dispute as to how much distribution was paid to the Bulls? Unless you think it was paid in cash? The RFL was in fact (and very simply) claiming to be a creditor of OKB on the basis that it claimed OKB having gone into admin, had to pay the distribution money back. If the RFL was right, then it would be a debt. Owed by OKB. To the RFL. It is zero to do with any guarantee. If the RFL wanted to claim any money from OK personally then that would (obviously) be a matter purely between them and him. It would be nothing whatsoever to do with OKB and much less with the administrator of OKB. Either they could prove OK owed them money, or they couldn't. Either way, even you must realise that a creditors meeting of a company in administration is not the forum for a dispute between the RFL and a private individual about a claimed personal debt.
How do you suggest he was "Playing silly buggers"? He was either a creditor or he wasn't. What has that issue got to do with the RFL?
No poop, Sherlock. I have an equally profound revelation: Bradford Council is a council.'"
Are you still here? Nothing yet on what Khan produced to prove his £1m claim? Nothing to show that it was accepted by the administrator?
Sky money went into OKB, OK gave a personal guarantee of repayment should OKB enter admin. Sky money DID NOT & WILL NOT appear as a liability on OKB accounts. OKB DID NOT have any liability to repay the funds OK DID & DOES.
As stated the RFL registered their agreement with OK with the administrator to ensure that monies paid into OKB were provable and recorded accurately in OKB's financial accounts. As can be seen OK has attempted to claim investment figures he simply cannot prove. The RFL was simply protecting it's position.
As governing body, and as the organisation that would be funding the running of the business during admin, the RFL was rightly involved in the discussions with the administrator.
You are nothing but an ill informed, ignorant troll.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 9554 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="LeagueDweeb"Are you still here? Nothing yet on what Khan produced to prove his £1m claim? Nothing to show that it was accepted by the administrator?
Sky money went into OKB, OK gave a personal guarantee of repayment should OKB enter admin. Sky money DID NOT & WILL NOT appear as a liability on OKB accounts. OKB DID NOT have any liability to repay the funds OK DID & DOES.
As stated the RFL registered their agreement with OK with the administrator to ensure that monies paid into OKB were provable and recorded accurately in OKB's financial accounts. As can be seen OK has attempted to claim investment figures he simply cannot prove. The RFL was simply protecting it's position.
As governing body, and as the organisation that would be funding the running of the business during admin, the RFL was rightly involved in the discussions with the administrator.
You are nothing but an ill informed, ignorant troll.'"
Grief. You really don't know when to sto digging.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14145 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Derwent"Well we do know that there was a signed agreement between OK and the RFL that all SL monies would be required to be repaid if there was another insolvency event because that has been reported publicly in the press, and is also stated in the administrator's background to insolvency report.
What we don't know is the precise nature of that agreement, which is what is causing the confusion. For instance, it may have been the case that the agreement was that the company was responsible for the repayment but it would default to OK being personally liable should the company have insufficient funds to meet the liability. In which case, the RFL would be perfectly entitled to lodge a creditor claim initially against the company for the amount in question. The administrator would then formally declare that the company could not meet said liability and so the RFL would then have proper recourse to pursue OK for the money.'"
Yup. That's pretty well as I see it. Sadly, we can't be certain, and you can't take common-sense or normal sensible agreement-making for granted in anything in this arena!
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 322 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2014 | 11 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2014 | Sep 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Derwent"Well we do know that there was a signed agreement between OK and the RFL that all SL monies would be required to be repaid if there was another insolvency event because that has been reported publicly in the press, and is also stated in the administrator's background to insolvency report.
What we don't know is the precise nature of that agreement, which is what is causing the confusion. For instance, it may have been the case that the agreement was that the company was responsible for the repayment but it would default to OK being personally liable should the company have insufficient funds to meet the liability. In which case, the RFL would be perfectly entitled to lodge a creditor claim initially against the company for the amount in question. The administrator would then formally declare that the company could not meet said liability and so the RFL would then have proper recourse to pursue OK for the money.'"
Nice to see a couple of posters using some common sense.
OK and RW should be torn limb from limb for the practices they followed when running OK Bulls. They are entirely responsible for the mess that evolved.
OK will pay the price as he is being pursued by Bradford council for repayment of the £200k, and the RFL look as if they will pursue for the £900k he guaranteed.
OK was never 'ill'. The alleged £900k he invested just a month before he stepped down was a ruse. It didn't happen. RW was his front man handling the whole 'story' behind his exit, and the whole legal case for not buying shares is a ruse.
OK wanted out and followed a plan that he thought would get him out without too much collateral damage. It worked for a while because, as is the case in rugby league, everyone blamed the RFL.
It is now becoming apparent that the entire blame lies with those who ran the club, and the group of 'directors' who all jumped on board then jumped ship when it ran aground.
Hopefully Bradford Bulls will recover from this sorry episode.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 322 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2014 | 11 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2014 | Sep 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="mat"Grief. You really don't know when to sto digging.
'"
Oh do shut up you silly boy.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 9554 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="LeagueDweeb"Oh do shut up you silly boy.'"
Ooh insults. Last resort of a desperate troll .How about proving some of your claims. Not honest or noble to deride others claims without providing proof of your own, especially when their repeatedly blown out of the water by those who bother to download the legal documents from companies house.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14145 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| One of the wisest, and recently-enobled, posters on this forum used to paraphrase Bertrand Russell's famous quote "the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts" in his sig.
He wasn't far wrong, was he?
And one of my own: derision is the last refuge of someone who cannot carry an argument.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1722 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2010 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2018 | Oct 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Derwent"Well we do know that there was a signed agreement between OK and the RFL that all SL monies would be required to be repaid if there was another insolvency event because that has been reported publicly in the press, and is also stated in the administrator's background to insolvency report.'"
Is there any evidence of any signed agreement between OK and the RFL? From the interviews I have heard with Solly, he never actually confirmed anything was signed, just that there was an 'agreement'. I just always assumed the claim made by the RFL was just a Bully (Bully) tactic to shut OK up.
By the way, I don't know the answer to the above, if anyone could shine any light....
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Owner | 2874 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2004 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2024 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="daveyz999"Is there any evidence of any signed agreement between OK and the RFL? From the interviews I have heard with Solly, he never actually confirmed anything was signed, just that there was an 'agreement'. I just always assumed the claim made by the RFL was just a Bully (Bully) tactic to shut OK up.
By the way, I don't know the answer to the above, if anyone could shine any light....'"
The best available evidence is within the administrator's official report which says....
[iIn return for the granting of the Super League franchise to OK Bulls, as part of the purchase Mr Khan agreed to take a 50% reduction in the amount the company would receive from Central Funding for two seasons. The oniginal proposal by the RFL was that no central fundmg would be paid in season one of the new company, It was subsequently agreed that this would be spread over two seasons. [uThis arrangement was supported by a personal guarantee from Mr Khan which would be called upon to repay central funding advances if the company failed again within that two year penod[/u[/i
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1722 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2010 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2018 | Oct 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Thanks for that - Still not sure if anything has been signed, although OK has not kicked up a fuss when this went out in the press.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 8877 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2023 | Feb 2023 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| TBH it would not surprise me if LeagueDweeb was Duffy. LD has all his traits......
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 8115 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| I know it is impossible to be the case, but I'm already finding myself refreshing the news feeds and twitter every few minutes for news.
Not that I give a stuff obviously. Way too cool for that.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 8115 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="mystic eddie"TBH it would not surprise me if LeagueDweeb was Duffy. LD has all his traits......'"
Who is this Duffy of whom you speak? I don't believe you've mentioned him before in any context.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14145 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Derwent"The best available evidence is within the administrator's official report which says....
[iIn return for the granting of the Super League franchise to OK Bulls, as part of the purchase Mr Khan agreed to take a 50% reduction in the amount the company would receive from Central Funding for two seasons. The oniginal proposal by the RFL was that no central fundmg would be paid in season one of the new company, It was subsequently agreed that this would be spread over two seasons. [uThis arrangement was supported by a personal guarantee from Mr Khan which would be called upon to repay central funding advances if the company failed again within that two year penod[/u[/i'"
Indeed.
My problem with that wording has always been that it never made clear whether or not there was a contingent liability upon the company? The wording used there implies that the RFL could pursue OK whether or not there was, and whether or not the company actually made any repayment to the RFL?
It would concern me if there WAS a contingent liability upon the company, and at least the existence of said contingent liability was not referred to in the Administrator's Proposals. Not least because, in the unlikely event that there MIGHT be some dividend for the unsecureds, any crystalised RFL claim would massively dilute the claims of the remaining unsecureds.
Which was why my original conclusion was that it seemed unlikely that there would be such a condition applying to the company. Yet, if the RFL did indeed lodge a large claim, that would very much suggest that there WAS?
So it's got me beat!
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 17160 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="mystic eddie"TBH it would not surprise me if LeagueDweeb was Duffy. LD has all his traits......'"
And FA is apparently Sutcliffe. That's just leaves OK. My thinking is he is roger daly.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 7594 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2021 | May 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| If we've learnt anything from this its that none of us are really OK.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 28357 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Derwent"The best available evidence is within the administrator's official report which says....
... [uThis arrangement was supported by a personal guarantee from Mr Khan which would be called upon to repay central funding advances if the company failed again within that two year penod[/u[/i'"
The summary is not the whole story, there was no link to "company failure". They had to complete their 2014 fixtures. Of course if the club went completely tits it might end up that they couldn't complete their fixtures, so in some circumstances it could amount to the same thing, but it doesn't necessarily follow. I see no reason to think the Bulls won't complete their fixtures so that makes it to me a grey area..
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 7114 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| I doubt we'll hear anything today.
I'm in two minds on this.
Part of me doesn't want any back so it'll taste all the more sweeter when we stay up inspite of the deduction.
But part of me really wants all 6 back so that we can see this site go into meltdown. Calling people's bluff it'll be interesting to see Carter and a few of the posters on this site try and justify staying in RL despite earlier saying they'd walk away.
If we only get a few back it's crap as it gives people the chance to vent their spleen but with a get out clause for not being true to their word. ie. "I only threatened to walk away if they got all 6 back".
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 7114 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="tigertot"And FA is apparently Sutcliffe. That's just leaves OK. My thinking is he is roger daly.'"
I'm Omar Khan =#FFFFFF[size=50(not the former chairman of Bradford Bulls a different one in case his lawyers are reading this)[/size.
Given that I now have no affiliation to the Bulls I'm nailing my colours to the mast.
I'm a big Wildcats fan and would love all Wakefield season ticket holders to join me in Skipton tonight for free meals. You'll all fit in don't worry so just head up when you're ready.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Owner | 2874 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2004 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2024 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Adeybull"Indeed.
My problem with that wording has always been that it never made clear whether or not there was a contingent liability upon the company? The wording used there implies that the RFL could pursue OK whether or not there was, and whether or not the company actually made any repayment to the RFL?
It would concern me if there WAS a contingent liability upon the company, and at least the existence of said contingent liability was not referred to in the Administrator's Proposals. Not least because, in the unlikely event that there MIGHT be some dividend for the unsecureds, any crystalised RFL claim would massively dilute the claims of the remaining unsecureds.
Which was why my original conclusion was that it seemed unlikely that there would be such a condition applying to the company. Yet, if the RFL did indeed lodge a large claim, that would very much suggest that there WAS?
So it's got me beat!'"
I think we have to assume that there was a contingent liability on the company otherwise surely the administrator would have had to dismiss the RFL's claim - he is there to deal with the affairs of OKB Ltd not to deal with disputes between two 3rd parties. It would very much depend on the status of OK's guarantee - did he give a separate personal guarantee or was he in fact acting as guarantor for the company, which are two entirely different things.
|
|
|
|
|